All Good Things Must Come to an End

 

Well, here we are, after 11 weeks in a very enjoyable Film 101 course ! Indeed I have to admit the 5 E.T.’s and 1 big final assignment had proven to be a challenge.  Not so much because of the writing but rather due to we had to think deep and analyze a movie critically before writing. However, the great movies that we watched throughout the course compensated for it! Most of the movies, I may have never seen in my entire lifetime but thanks to this class, I am blessed to have the opportunity to watch the progress of the film industry from the silent era all the way to the present day.  Also, it’s worth mentioning that I have been able to improve my writing skills through this course and gained knowledge on film history, psychology in films and film techniques. With that, I would like to thank you, Mr Rey for giving us such an enjoyable time throughout the entire course and its a pity I had to return in summer to take it because I wish we had Film 101 and other film courses offered sooner in ADP. Keep it up! =)

Final Essay : Distubia (2007) vs Rear Window (1954)

             vs      

Voyeurism is the act of observing people’s lives and contrary to popular beliefs, is not always about sexual pleasure (Berardinelli). As much we don’t like admitting it, watching a movie itself makes us a voyeur as we peep into the lives of the characters that are portrayed on the screen without them noticing it! Many movies have been made through these years on the issue of voyeurism but two movies under the suspense thriller genre that have greatly caught my attention are Rear Window by Alfred Hitchcock and Disturbia by D.J. Caruso. Many have complained that Disturbia was a rip-off of Rear Window and even a lawsuit was filed against the makers of Disturbia on September 5, 2008 (Wikipedia). Personally to me, despite some similarities, both movies have their individual distinctiveness. Now, I am going to compare and contrast both movies in order to prove my stand that both movies are different.

To start off, let’s compare the hero of both movies. Even though both main actors were confined to their homes, the circumstances that led to their confinement were very different.  In Rear Window, L.B.Jeffries a professional photographer had broken his leg during a dangerous job assignment and hence, he had to rest in his Greenwich apartment. Whereas, in Disturbia, Kale Brecht was put under house arrest for three months as he had punched his Spanish teacher in high school. It is also interesting to note that Jeffries was not as mobile Kale because Kale could move around easily within a 30m radius of his house while Jeffries had a cast on his left leg and could move about only with the help of his wheelchair.

Moving on, we are going to compare both the heroines. In Rear Window, the relationship of Jeffries with Lisa Fremont was already well-established and in fact, they were going through some rough times while in Disturbia, Kale meets Ashley Carlson for the first time when she newly moves into his neighborhood. In both movies, the heroines were subjected to “the male gaze” which according to the feminist theory, women’s prime function in a movie is to provide pleasure for heterosexual man (Buono). This can be seen when the camera gives us the full-body shot of Lisa Fremont’s figure most of the time or even Ashley when she wears a bikini to swim. Due to the Hays code implementation during the time of the Rear Window’s production, excessive skin can’t be shown; hence Lisa often wore clothes that emphasized her cleavage or gowns made out of see-through material which teases the male audience. Meanwhile, in Disturbia, Ashley freely flaunts her lanky figurine for the pleasure of male audiences and whenever Kale uses his binoculars to see her swim, we as the audiences are put into his shoes and when Ashley realizes that Kale is spying on her, we ourselves are found guilty of being a Peeping Tom! This definitely fulfills the criterion of the “male gaze” where the male audience identifies with the protagonist and places himself in the Point of View of the hero (Buono).

Next, in Rear Window, we are straightaway shown the array of interesting neighbors that Jefferies could see from the his apartment’s window which includes an aspiring dancer whom he names Miss Torso, a couple owning a dog, Miss Lonelyhearts who is unlucky with love, the Songwriter, the Newlywed couple and most importantly, Lars Thorwald, the man whom Jefferies suspects that killed his own wife.  On the other hand, in Disturbia, we are brought through a series of flashback that involves fishing, car accident, a fight in school and finally, the courtroom scene that leaves the protagonist in the state of house arrest. Only then, when Kale gets bored of his unproductive daily lifestyle, he starts using his binoculars to spy on his neighbors. To me, the only two memorable people that Kale spies on are Ashley, his love interest and Robert Turner, his neighbor who lives across the street whom he suspects to be a serial killer that targets only red heads.

This is because; only these two characters are the main concern of Disturbia whereas in Rear Window, all the neighbors and even animal have important roles or are rather significant throughout the entire film. To illustrate, the dog that was killed in Rear Window, was proven crucial in proving that Lars was a killer as the dog “knew too much”. The neighbors also provide a theory of the course of Jeffries and his fiancée; Lisa’s relationship (Wikipedia). Take for example, the initially lovey-dovey newlywed couple whom we see spending their time only in bedroom, by the end of the movie whose relationship deteriorates provides us a flashback of Jeffries and Lisa’s past. Next, Lars and his wife whom are always arguing are the direct mirror image of Jeffries and Lisa current relationship status as Jeffries always complains that Lisa is “just too perfect”. Meanwhile, the future could be both Lisa and Jeffries turn out to lead such uneventful lives like the boring couple with the dog or either end up being broken-hearted like Miss Lonelyhearts or even be like Miss Torso whom earlier leads a happy-go-lucky life but eventually finds true love in her soldier boyfriend.

Lastly, let’s compare the mise-en-scene of Disturbia and Rear Window. In Rear Window, since the entire movie was shot in a studio set, Jeffries was seen spending his entire time in his apartment and all he could see was the rear windows of his neighbors’. Whereas, in Disturbia, since the movie was shot in a real suburb area, Kale could be seen moving around in his huge house and we as audience could see him spying on the entire street in his neighborhood, thus giving the movie a wider space to focus on.  As for the costumes, Jeffries is seen wearing pale colored pajamas throughout the entire course of the film meanwhile Kale wears colorful teen clothing.  Too add on, in Disturbia, we see many high-tech gadgets like an “IPod”, “iMac” and “iTunes”, like as if Apple has paid the director to promote its products as opposed to Rear Window where the only gadget that we see is the 35mm Exakta Varex VX camera (Wikipedia).  In addition, the sound in Rear Window was entirely diagetic arising from only the normal life characters all through the film.  On the contrary, in Disturbia, it was mostly non-diagetic and this proven as the movie has a list of soundtracks and background scores.

All in all, it’s well-proven that Disturbia and Rear Window are two rather different films altogether. As a matter of fact, I think it’s offensive to even think that Disturbia as being the same with Rear Window because both Hitchcock and Caruso have brought us into two different worlds that they have envisioned and displayed them beautifully on the silver screen!

References:

1.      Berardinelli, James. Review: Rear Window. 2000. 18 July 2011 <http://www.reelviews.net/movies/r/rear_window.html&gt;.

2.      Buono, Reynold John. Feminist Theory: The Male Gaze. 18 July 2011 <http://adprosebud.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/feminist-theory-  the-male-gaze/>.

3.      Disturbia. 18 July 2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disturbia_%28film%29&gt;.

4.      Rear Window. 18 July 2011 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window&gt;.

ET 15: SINGING IN THE RAIN: MUSICAL NUMBERS

Singing in The Rain is a musical that has it’s songs well positioned to ensure the smooth flow of the film’s story line. There’s never a point in the movie that we as audiences feel that any song is redundant. The songs were used to show audiences how the two main characters, Don Lockwood and Kathy Selden developed from being two untruthful strangers to a pair of sincere lovers. I am now going to analyze how the musical numbers “Fit as a Fiddle (And Ready for Love)” , “All I Do Is Dream of You”, “You Were Meant For Me” and “Singin’ in the Rain” depict the transformation beautifully before our eyes.

At the start of the film, at the movie premiere of “The Royal Rascal”, when Don was asked about his past by Dora, the event’s host, he told that he had a very “dignified” and “proper” childhood. Alas, at the same he said so, we were brought back to his past by the number “Fit as a Fiddle (And Ready for Love)” and only we the audience know that the truth was far from dignified! The title of the song pretty much says it all as Don and his best friend, Cosmo Brown were shown as young and carefree boys dressed in checkered green suits and performing tap dance in front of a stage audience. The song also indirectly implies that Don is very much single and was on a hunt to find his lady-love. However, despite being booed by the crowd, I could see that they really enjoyed what they were doing as both of them were smiling from ear to ear. The scene then cuts back to the movie premiere and we could see Don smiling too, but his smile now looks very in-genuine and forceful, very much a “plastic smile”. Also, it is important to note that Don wore a white trench coat to the movie premiere and I believe it symbolizes the lies that Don has been hiding from the world in order to put up with the false “mask” of a prim and proper movie star.  Nevertheless, I wouldn’t blame Don for saying those lies because that is what the society and his fans expect from him.

The next song would be “All I Do is Dream of You” and its right after the boy meets girl scene where Kathy lies to Don that she’s on the way to New York to be an actress.  Also she sneers at Don for not talking, not acting and doing lots of dumb show in his films and here too we see clash of egos between the two lead characters.  The next time Don meets Kathy was in the after party of the movie premiere and she was performing to the tunes of “All I Do is Dream of You” in a tiny pink attire as a party performer. Kathy’s expression when she jumps out of that cake smiling like sunshine but then turns mortified when she sees Don was priceless as he now knows the truth! Nonetheless, she continues to dance gracefully and with joy, unleashing the girlishness inside of her and she too like Don is dreaming to find her prince charming!

Moving on, “You Were Meant For Me” is about Don trying to woo Kathy. In this song, both characters shed the image of dishonesty that we have seen in “Fit as a Fiddle” and “All I Do is Dream of You” as they express their true feelings to each other.  Don brings Kathy to an empty studio set in Monumental Studios where he used a sunset background lit with various studio lights  to create a dream-like and romantic set. It is interesting to note that Don dresses in normal casual clothing, creating an impression that Don doesn’t want to appear as a high-class person but rather as any other ordinary human-being in front of Kathy.  In the song,we could see many instances where Don supports Kathy as a way to show his love for her. For example, Kathy pulls away from Don while dancing because she was hesitant about their relationship as Don was a famous Hollywood star whereas she was a struggling small-time actress. However Don approaches her and reassures her that he will never let her go. Also, in the dance sequences, its very apparent that Don was leading the dance as he was teaching Kathy the routines. Never once, he is seen pressurizing Kathy to accept his love when she was reluctant to accept his embraces. It can be interpreted that Don was willing to wait for Kathy’s love for as long as it takes! Finally, Kathy accepts Don’s embrace, thus agreeing to be his girlfriend and this is the turning point of their relationship in the film.

“Singin’ in the Rain” is the final song that I am going to analyze. Right before the song starts, Don kisses Kathy for the first time in the film and he says to Kathy “from where I stand, the sun is shining all over the place” despite the fact it was raining heavily! This shows that Don loves Kathy with all his heart and whenever he’s with her, all he could feel is warmth and happiness.  When Kathy goes inside the house, he starts dancing on the streets and his dance steps becomes gradually clownish as the song progresses. He splashes and jumps around in water puddles like a little kid and this is a total contrast from an uptight Don that we have seen before. Also, it can be said, that Don doesn’t care about what the world thinks about him and Kathy anymore as he’s tired of putting a false front in front the world and wants to be truthful. This can be seen as Don wasn’t wearing the trench coat that we have seen at the start of the film which represented dishonesty. The rainwater in this musical number can be seen as “purifying” and the rebirth of an honest and free Don.

All in all, all the songs in Singing in the Rain has served its purpose well and its all thanks to the well-planned insertion of the songs throughout the entire course of the film. Undeniably, this the movie deserve its reputation as the greatest musical ever made in all times!

ET 6 TRIUMPH OF THE WILL AND POTEMKIN COMPARISON: REALISM (EDITED)

       vs   

“Triumph of the Will” by Leni Reifenstahl and “The Battleship Potemkin” by Sergei Eisenstein are two propaganda films which execute their job well in conveying their message across to their targeted audiences. However, both movies have very different ideologies where Einstein promoted communism whereas Reifenstahl publicized fascism.  Although they have differing ideologies, there are a few elements that are common to both films namely crowds, uniforms and children and I am going to compare how these elements are treated by each director in their respective films.

To start off, both directors have cleverly made use of crowds to convey a message to audiences. In “Triumph of the Will”, this can be well illustrated in the opening sequence of the film where we are shown an aerial view of a large crowd of people.  The scene then cuts to show Adolf Hitler exiting an airplane and receiving thunderous rounds of applause and cheers from the crowd.  Hence, Reifenstahl used crowds to show audiences that Hitler has many supporters  who worshiped him, thus giving him a “god-like” entrance in the film.  On the other hand, Eisenstein has used crowds rather differently. Right before the Odessa Steps sequence, a large crowd of people were seen happily cheering the arrival of the sailors. In the crowd, we could observe close up shots of people from different walks of life, among them being a young boy and his mother, an old woman with glasses, a rich young woman and even a disabled man. However, their happiness did not last for long  as the Tsarist soldiers were shown marching down the seemingly endless Odessa steps in a straight line formation and shot anyone who was not with them. In that epic scene, we could see all hell’s running lose as people were running away to save their dear lives.  It can be said that in the beginning, the crowds represented unity but the unity was soon disrupted by the bullet shots that threatened to break apart the once united Soviet Union.

Moving on, uniforms play a huge role in both movies and very well represent their respective propaganda. In “Triumph of the Will”, soldiers in their uniforms, farmers dressed in their farming costumes and people of various social classes are seen to be greeting Hitler. This shows that the Nazi’s ignore social statuses and regard everyone as equals.  Also, in the camps where the soldiers live, they make a point not to wear uniforms because without uniforms, there won’t be ranks and a sort of “brotherhood” is formed.  While uniforms were seen to promote equality in “Triumph of the Will”, it has quite the opposite purpose in “The Battleship Potemkin”. In the first part of the film, we could see clear division between the ruling class and the working class as sailors, captains and other crew members of the ship wore their respective uniforms. Another example of difference in ranks is also observed in the scene where the sailors refusing to eat the rotten meat are punished with a heavy white canvas sheet thrown over them and were waiting to be shot by the firing squad under the orders of the high-ranked officers. However, the squad refused to kill their own men and this is where a revolution for equality begins in the film as all sailors joined forces to fight against their superiors.

Last but not least, children were also used as a means of propaganda in both films. The Youth Rally scene in “Triumph of the Will” is the perfect example as it portrayed orderliness and Hitler’s ability to bring together such a huge crowd of  young boys whom most people often perceive to be naughty and lack the ability to follow orders! It  also showed the Germans that Hitler cared for the younger generation and he was fighting for their better quality of life.  In comparison, children were used as victims of violence in “The Battleship Potemkin”.  For example, the once cheerful boy who sent off the sailors to sea was trampled to death by the crowd at the Odessa Steps sequence. The close up shot on the boy’s face was really pitiful as he was in terrible pain and was crying helplessly for his mother before meeting his end! The director knows very well that the effect of the child’s death would be more powerful to audience as opposed to the death of an adult because children are often used in movies as they are thought to be pure, vulnerable and innocent.

All in all, Leni Reifenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein have very well fused the three elements that I have described into their respective movies and no doubt, it has resulted in the world’s greatest propaganda films.

ET 6 TRIUMPH OF THE WILL AND POTEMKIN COMPARISON: REALISM

       vs   

“Triumph of the Will” by Leni Reifenstahl and “The Battleship Potemkin” by Sergei Eisenstein are two propaganda films which execute their job well in conveying their message across to their targeted audiences. However, both movies have very different ideologies where Einstein promoted communism whereas Reifenstahl publicized fascism. Also, it’s important to note that “The Battleship Potemkin” was an entirely fictional film which had the Soviet Union as its backdrop while “Triumph of the Will” chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, Germany which was attended by more than 700,000 Nazi supporters.  Although they have differing ideologies, there are a few elements that are common to both films namely crowds, uniforms and children. Now, I am going to compare how these three elements are treated by each director in their respective films.

In movies, generally, crowds typically represent the unity of people and both directors have cleverly made use of crowds to convey a message to audiences. In “Triumph of the Will”, this can be well illustrated in the opening sequence of the film where we are seen to be flying in the clouds on an airplane and shown the aerial view of the city Nuremberg which looked very peaceful and untouched by modernization. Then the scene cuts to large crowd of people cheering when the plane lands and Adolf Hitler is shown exiting the plane. All of these happen in the first 5 minutes of the film and there’s a reason why Riefenstahl has made it as such.  Reifenstahl used crowds to show to audiences that Hitler has many supporters and even those who might not have agreed with Hitler’s ideologies, will feel threatened looking at such large crowd of followers.  On the other hand, Eisenstein has used crowds rather differently. In the Odessa Steps sequence, the Tsarist soldiers were shown openly firing gun shots at a large crowd of innocent civilians. In that epic scene, we could see all hell’s running lose as people were running away to save their dear lives.  We as audiences feel helpless watching such an inhumane act happening before our eyes and there’s nothing we can do to stop those evil soldiers! Hence, it can be concluded that crowds are used as a tool to instill fear in “Triumph of the Will” whereas in ” The Battleship Potemkin”, the helpless crowd evoke anger and rage within audiences.

Moving on, uniforms play a huge role in both movies and very well represent their respective propaganda. In “Triumph of the Will”, soldiers in their uniforms, farmers dressed in their farming costumes and people of various social classes are seen to be greeting Hitler. This shows that the Nazi’s ignore social statuses and regard everyone as equals.  Also, in the camps where the soldiers live, they make a point not to wear uniforms because without uniforms, there won’t be ranks and a sort of “brotherhood” is formed.  While uniforms were seen to promote equality in “Triumph of the Will”, it has quite the opposite purpose in “The Battleship Potemkin”. In the first part of the film, we could see clear division between the ruling class and the working class as sailors, captains and other crew members of the ship had their respective uniforms. Also, we could see that the working class experienced harsh working conditions as they were forced to eat meat that was infested with maggots.  That particular scene agrees with Marx’s theory of Alienation where Karl Marx says that a worker under the capitalism system has no control over the conditions of his work as the owner decides the hours, environment, rules and procedures.

Last but not least, children were also used as a means of propaganda in both films. The Youth Rally scene in “Triumph of the Will” is the perfect example as it portrayed orderliness and Hitler’s ability to bring together such a huge crowd of  young boys whom most people often perceive to be naughty and lack the ability to follow orders! It  also showed the Germans that Hitler cared for the younger generation and he was fighting for their better quality of life.  In comparison, children were used as victims of violence in “The Battleship Potemkin”.  For example, there was a scene of a boy being trampled to death by the crowd at the Odessa Steps sequence. The close up shot on the boy’s face was really pitiful as he was in terrible pain and worse of all, he lost his life for no apparent reason! The director knows very well that the effect of the child’s death would be more powerful to audience as opposed to the death of an adult because children are often used in movies as they are thought to be pure, vulnerable and innocent.

All in all, Leni Reifenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein have very well fused the three elements that I have described into their respective movies and no doubt, it has resulted in the world’s greatest propaganda films.

ET 3: CHARLIE AND BUSTER

VS

Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Ashton Kutcher and many other contemporary comedians of today owe a huge deal to silent era comedians before them and in my opinion, the greatest two are Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Despite originating from the same time period, they both have very differing styles of presenting comedy. I am going to reference both artistes based on the movies that I watched in my Film 101 which are “The Cure” starring Chaplin and “The General” starring Keaton.

To start off, Chaplin had a toothbrush styled mustache, carried a cane, wore baggy pants, a tight suit, clown shoes and off course, his signature bowler hat! Keaton on the other hand used a pork pie hat but apart from that, dressed rather normally. Charlie Chaplin sort of limped when he walked and it evokes laughter because he looks like a duck waddling whereas Keaton sorts of walks and runs clumsily, giving me a feeling that he looks unstable and could fall down anytime.

Both characters are alike in the sense that they both are part of farce comedies where their characters receive violent physical misfortunes, thus being comical to audiences because we are grateful to not be in the same sorry situation as either Chaplin or Keaton! On the other hand, both characters are different as Chaplin made use of many facial expressions that made audiences laugh whereas Keaton always had a blank look on his face immaterial of any situation he was facing which also amuses the audiences because his expressions never changed!

Both Chaplin and Keaton have different ways to deal with problems that arise in their movies. For example, in “The Cure”, Chaplin’s character had a clash with a fat and arrogant aristocrat suffering from gout. He often escapes from trouble by being lucky most of the time. This can be seen in the scene where Chaplin tries to rescue his ladylove from the bad guy and when the aristocrat tries to catch Chaplin to hit him, Chaplin just happens to magically slide away from his grasps. Thus, it can be said that Chaplin was a rather slippery fellow and no wonder he’s known as the Trickster! Keaton on the other hand faces his problems in a different manner. In “The General”, when his ladylove was captured by the Union soldiers, Keaton risked his life by sneaking into the Union’s headquarters to rescue her. He uses his heroism and skills to fight his enemies rather than just being lucky like Chaplin.

In my opinion, I prefer Charlie Chaplin over Buster Keaton because of his perfect timing in his comedy sequences which never fails to gain my attention. The rotating door scene at the spa in “The Cure” was priceless! Also, his body language and attributes are rather unique as opposed to Keaton. In addition, the pace of Chaplin’s movies is rather fast compared to Keaton’s as the former often acted in short films. However, Keaton should also be applauded because of his contribution as one of the pioneers of slapstick comedy and also his bravery of performing his own dare-devil acrobatic stunts in his movies.

All in all, the movie industry today has indeed suffered a great loss as there will never be another great comedian that could match the talents of neither Charlie Chaplin nor Buster Keaton!

ET 4: BIRTH OF A NATION AND TRIUMPH OF THE WILL

         

I was introduced to the movie “Birth of a Nation” directed by D.W. Griffith when I previously took a U.S. history course.  I still remember vividly that in my history textbook, the movie was glorified as a masterpiece and was a pride for racist White Americans during the 1920’s as it was about the infamous Civil War and heavily degraded the Blacks. However, it is only now, in Film 101, I got the opportunity to watch the movie along with another famous propaganda film which is “Triumph of the Will” directed by Leni Riefenstahl that chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg.  Indeed, I have to admit, since both movies are made at two different time periods, they differ greatly in production values and technology. However, they both execute their job well in conveying their message across to their targeted audiences. I am now going to compare and analyze “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph of the Will” in terms of their melodramatic essence and why both films act as excellent propaganda tools.

In “Birth of a Nation”, there were various close up shots used by Griffith focusing on the expressions of the Whites and not surprisingly, he rarely zooms the camera to the Blacks because I believe he wanted audiences to think of Blacks as people who don’t have any feelings thus being compared to lesser human beings.  In one of the scenes, there was a close up shot of a White child crying and children are often used in movies because they are thought as being pure, vulnerable and innocent. Thus, Griffith has convinced his audiences that the Blacks are heartless and they wouldn’t hesitate to kill the helpless child. This is indeed a good use of melodrama. Also, Griffith often used cross-cutting shots in this film. For example, in melodrama films, there is bound to be an element of suspense and the director has created that by alternately showing the scene of the Ku Klux Klan(KKK) riding their horses and the scene of a White family being held captive in a cabin surrounded by Blacks. This indeed arouses suspense among the audiences on whether the KKK will save the family. To add to that, this is an excellent use of heroism where the KKK, being the Hero comes to save the day! Griffith also has taken the opportunity to insert love sequences in this “historical film” and perhaps this is to attract more female audiences to view this film. As expected of most melodrama films, both lead couples in the film receive their happy ending as both the Southern and Northern families unite and Griffith has effectively used iris shots to emphasize intimate scenes at the end of the film.

“Birth of a Nation” works effectively as propaganda tool because the director has effectively created a sense of “us and them” in the film where “us” are the Whites and “them” being the Blacks. In many instances, there were double standards in terms of the portrayal of the Blacks and Whites. Firstly, when he portrayed the Whites as heroes who fight for all their life’s worth, he instead portrayed the Blacks as cowards who when lost the battle, took the first opportunity to run. Next,when he portrayed the Whites as being civilized and having a strong family unit, the Blacks whereas were portrayed as hooligans and people with utmost low moral values. The list can go on and on… In addition, Griffith has used religion as way to strengthen his propaganda. In the final scene of the movie, Jesus Christ was shown to be appearing to bless the Whites who have won the battle against the Blacks. In other words, Griffith wanted to point out that God himself has approved that Whites should always be superior and rule the Blacks. It is indeed a no-brainer on why “Birth of a Nation” has created unwanted animosity among the Blacks and Whites upon its release.

Moving on to “Triumph of the Will” by Leni Riefenstahl, the film’s opening sequence in my opinion is explosive and creates a perfect sense of melodrama! In the opening of the movie, these statements were displayed,

“Twenty years after the outbreak of the World War,

Sixteen years after the start of the German suffering,

Nineteen months after the start of Germany’s rebirth “

Tell me, what other perfect openings could there have been to such a great and powerful melodramatic film?  Any German at that time would have been emotionally pumped to watch the film just by viewing the opening sequence because this was what they needed, someone understanding their pain of losing the World War and now it’s time for them to reclaim their lost glory! Right after those statements were shown, the scene fades away and we are seen to be flying in the clouds on an airplane. Then, we are shown the aerial view of the city Nuremberg which looked very peaceful and untouched by modernization thus earning its name as “Old Germany”.  The scene then cuts to a large crowd of people cheering when the plane lands and Adolf Hitler is shown exiting the plane. All of these happen in the first 5 minutes of the film and there’s a reason why Riefenstahl has made it as such.  Hitler is shown to be a hero and a savior descending from the sky who was sent by God to relieve the Germans from their suffering just like the KKK in “Birth of a Nation”.

“Triumph of the Will” also contains the perfect ingredients to be a propaganda tool. First and foremost, the low-angle shot used whenever Hitler gives his speech is brilliant as it emphasizes his power and it seems like as if he’s speaking to us the audience itself. Next, Hitler was always full of energy and charisma whenever he delivered his speech and this could be seen by his well-trained body language. His powerful voice just makes us sit up straight and look forward to whatever he has got to say next. Also, the Youth Rally scene in the movie portrayed orderliness and Hitler’s ability to bring together such a huge crowd of people especially the young boys whom most people often perceive to be naughty and lack the ability to follow orders! It  also showed the Germans that Hitler cared for the younger generation and he was fighting for their better quality of life. Hitler’s propaganda of equality too is clearly seen where everyone present in the rally were wearing same types of clothes  and there were no ranks among the military men.  It is interesting to note as well that Hitler used religion as a propaganda just like D.W. Griffith in “Birth of a Nation”. This can be seen when a bishop was present during the final speech that Hitler delivered in the end of the film and as Germany was a Christian nation, the people would have felt like as if God endorsed whatever actions that Hitler took since the bishop is a representative of God.

All in all, “Birth of a Nation” and “Triumph of the Will” are indeed masterpieces of propaganda and I wish, if only they were used for a good cause rather than evil, the world would have been a better place altogether.

ET 2: YOURSELF AS AUDIENCE

When I was required to watch the French short film, “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” last Friday for my Film 101 class, I didn’t get my hopes up too much to be entertained. After all, it was my first time ever watching a silent film and watching it at 8a.m. didn’t help either! However, by the end of the movie, my perception on silent films completely changed and I will tell you why.

At the start of the film, the lead character, a Civil War prisoner was about to be hanged.  Frankly speaking, during the first 5 minutes of the film, I was bored but the moment the lead of the film had a flashback of his wife and kids, the film gained my attention. A series of questions started to running through my mind. I was puzzled and wondering whether the lead was either a good or bad guy. This is because, the sadness on his face when he realized he would never see his family again, really saddened me. It got me thinking, that no man who loved his family that much, could ever commit a crime that would result in a death penalty. That is when, I decided that the soldiers around him were evil guys despite the fact that I did not know the true story that led towards the hero’s death sentence. Also when the hero started crying

When he was dropped into the river, I was so happy that he could free himself from the bindings of the ropes on his legs and hands. I didn’t care that the scene did not really make much sense because surely the soldiers would have tied strong knots on his leg and hands making it impossible for him to release himself. Even if he did, he would have run out of air and drowned after all. Nevertheless,  I was extremely excited when the hero rose to the surface of the river. My first reaction was for him to swim away from the area as fast as possible. However, what came next really confused me! The hero actually waited for the soldiers to fire gunshots towards him and then only did he swim away. Naturally, if it would have been in real life, anyone  in that situation would have impulsively tried to disappear from the sight of those evil soldiers as fast as possible. Nonetheless, I was well aware since it was a film, directors often portray the main star of the film as being macho and have the ability to defy all obstacle he faces!

What came next was an intense scene of chasing and shooting. I was rooting for the lead to not be shot by the soldiers and if I was watching the film in my own living room, I would have practically screamed for the lead to swim faster and faster! Only when he reached the river bank, I heaved a sigh of relieve. However, the shooting did not end there as shots were randomly being fired towards the direction of the hero and he had to run for his dear life. I could feel the tiredness and feeling of helpfulness of the hero as the actor emoted his expressions very well. When the hero finally reached a tunnel of blackness, I started to have a hunch that he might be dreaming because it looked creepy and I was afraid that the hero was going to fall into a hole of nothingness. Alas, when he walked towards the tunnel, his house and wife appeared. I was about to cheer for the hero as he finally was reunited with the love of his life but what came next totally deceived me. It appears that it was all an imagination and the hero was hanged to death after all by being dropped halfway from the bridge and not all the way into the river.

All in all, at the end of the film, I was shrouded in mixed feelings of sadness and foolishness of being fooled by the film. This is why, I have come to realize that silent films  are as entertaining as modern films we have today and  in future, I am looking forward to watching more movies as such.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog for FILM 101 (Introduction to Films) !